CANADA called for the full use of “authoritative and independent
scientific sources” in GBO 3. The EU suggested: merging paragraphs on
inviting the GEF and parties to provide funding for GBO 3, supported by
MEXICO and opposed by the AFRICAN GROUP; referring to the full set of
2010 biodiversity indicators; and, with NORWAY, reviewing the final
version of GBO 3 at SBSTTA 14. The AFRICAN GROUP, opposed by the EU,
suggested “requesting” the GEF to provide financial support.

BRAZIL suggested taking into account progress made in and constraints to
achieving the 2010 target. AUSTRALIA suggested the Executive Secretary
provide an early draft of the GBO’s revised scope for comments by
national focal points.

CANADA, supported by many, proposed an annex reflecting
WGRI 2
discussions on GBO 3, while BRAZIL noted that the proposed annex does
not account for all views expressed during discussions. Opposed by
AUSTRALIA, BRAZIL suggested that “special attention” not be restricted
to aquatic environments and invasive species, with the EU proposing, and
delegates agreeing, to delete reference to “special.” On employing
scenarios beyond 2010, BRAZIL, opposed by MEXICO, preferred urging
parties to focus on work up to 2010. Delegates agreed to an EU proposal
to employ scenarios “as appropriate.”

The EU noted that the draft recommendation has no added value and
proposed additional text specifying, inter alia, that the revised
Strategic Plan should include national outcome-oriented and, if
possible, quantitative targets, and that the revision should be based on
GBO 3. AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND noted that the EU’s proposal goes
beyond WGRI’s mandate, with AUSTRALIA suggesting incorporating the
issues raised during
WGRI 2 in the revised Strategic Plan at COP 9. The
AFRICAN GROUP and others supported the EU proposal.

In the afternoon, delegates agreed to discard this draft recommendation
and add a paragraph to the draft recommendation on the implementation of
goals 2 and 3 of the Strategic Plan (UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/2/CRP.1), noting
that
WGRI 2 recommendations arising from the in-depth review of goals 2
and 3 provide important input to the Strategic Plan beyond 2010. MEXICO
suggested allowing parties to provide further input to inform the
discussion on the Strategic Plan at COP 9.

OPTIONS AND A DRAFT STRATEGY FOR RESOURCE MOBILIZATION: On the
draft recommendation (UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/2/CRP.4), the AFRICAN GROUP,
supported by BRAZIL, suggested inviting regional economic integration
groups to provide comments on a resource mobilization strategy, with
AUSTRALIA adding partner organizations and donors. The EU, BRAZIL and
ARGENTINA supported, while AUSTRALIA opposed, holding informal
consultations on the development of a strategy alongside intersessional
CBD meetings before COP 9. ARGENTINA and AUSTRALIA suggested deleting
the request to parties to participate in a data-collection effort on aid
targeting CBD implementation conducted by the OECD, while the EU favored
“encouraging” parties to do so.

The revised draft recommendation will be presented on Friday.

OPERATIONS OF THE CONVENTION: In the morning, Chair Rezende de
Castro introduced the draft recommendation (UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/2/CRP.5). In
the afternoon, discussions continued on the revised text
(UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/2/CRP.5/Rev.1).

Review and retirement of COP decisions: Supported by ARGENTINA,
COLOMBIA and BRAZIL, but opposed by the EU, AUSTRALIA suggested removing
reference to retiring “elements of decisions,” emphasizing only retiring
decisions in their entirety. She proposed new text requesting the
Executive Secretary to list, on the Convention’s website, decisions
retired due to their completion and those that have been superseded by
more recent decisions. The AFRICAN GROUP requested taking into account
guiding principles and decisions that have not been implemented or
reflected in later decisions.

Preferring triennial COP meetings after COP 10, BRAZIL proposed retiring
decisions at the interval between COPs rather than only after eight
years. The EU suggested that the issue be reviewed at COP 10, in
conjunction with periodicity of the COP itself.

Admission of observers: On the annex outlining policy for
admitting observers, delegates debated references to private sector
participation. BURKINA FASO suggested that observers should be qualified
in fields relating to all three objectives of the CBD. COLOMBIA and
CHINA questioned the value of the annex and WGRI’s mandate to revise the
Rules of Procedure.

In the afternoon, debating the revised text, CHINA, supported by CHILE,
ARGENTINA and ALGERIA, proposed that the Executive Secretary prepare the
list of observers for the COP’s consideration, with COLOMBIA requesting
periodic reviews. CHILE suggested that observers be admitted unless at
least one-third of the parties oppose. The EU suggested deleting the
annex and requesting the Executive Secretary to compile a list of
observers at previous meetings and publish it on the website. NIGERIA
stressed that admission should be decided at the beginning of each
meeting. NORWAY emphasized flexibility for indigenous participation in
the Article 8(j) Working Group.

Chair Rezende de Castro deferred the issue to informal consultations
that continued into the evening.

STREAMLINING GUIDANCE TO THE GEF: On the draft recommendation
(UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/2/CRP.6), the EU, opposed by BRAZIL, ARGENTINA and
ECUADOR, and supported by NORWAY and MEXICO, suggested that the
Executive Secretary, rather than the Bureau, continue dialogue with the
GEF CEO/Chairperson, while ALGERIA and MALAYSIA suggested that both
maintain the dialogue.

The EU and ALGERIA requested that the Executive Secretary, rather than
the COP President, transmit the four-year framework for programme
priorities to the GEF Council. The AFRICAN GROUP opposed reference to
submissions by observers on the framework, while CANADA proposed
including national priorities identified in NBSAPs. TUNISIA suggested
text on supporting the mid-term review of the RAF with broad
participation of all parties, to better prepare the fifth replenishment.

IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS 2 AND 3 OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN: Delegates
considered the draft recommendation (UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/2/CRP.1). AUSTRALIA,
NEW ZEALAND and CANADA opposed listing mechanisms to facilitate the
exchange of best practices and lessons learned, opposed by NIGERIA,
ALGERIA and BRAZIL who urged maintaining references to, inter alia,
South-South cooperation. MEXICO suggested bracketing the text pending
the results of the Friends of the Chair group.

NEW ZEALAND, CHILE and MEXICO preferred deleting text on enhancing
monitoring of financial resources, while CANADA opposed reference to
development of effective monitoring indicators.

AUSTRALIA, NORWAY and others expressed concern with requesting the
Executive Secretary to organize capacity-building workshops on a regular
basis with resources from the mandatory Trust Fund, with CANADA
proposing to reaffirm decision VIII/8 (implementation of the Convention
and its Strategic Plan) on the need for regional and subregional
meetings to discuss national experiences in implementing NBSAPs.

On developing a repository of NBSAPs, AUSTRALIA stressed the need to
build upon existing databases rather than creating new ones. On
instruments to support parties in developing, reviewing and implementing
NBSAPs, the EU, opposed by the AFRICAN GROUP, suggested deleting
reference to the 2010 target. On allocating time during future CBD
meetings to discuss NBSAPs, NEW ZEALAND urged caution in making this a
standard component of all future CBD meetings.

AUSTRALIA, MEXICO and NIGERIA, opposed by the EU, questioned the
relevance of “One UN” programmes in integrating biodiversity issues.
NORWAY, with the EU and CANADA, suggested inviting UNDP and the FAO
alongside UNEP to further examine ways and means to support national
implementation of the Convention.

BRAZIL, supported by AUSTRALIA and ARGENTINA, proposed inviting parties
and others to take into account in NBSAPs, and contribute to,
initiatives aimed at assessing, inter alia: the economic benefits
of biodiversity conservation; sustainable use; fair and equitable
sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic
resources; and costs of biodiversity loss. ARGENTINA and PALAU favored
deleting “economic” from benefits, so as to refer to benefits in a
broader sense, with KIRIBATI adding social and cultural benefits.
AUSTRALIA and others, opposed by EL SALVADOR, COLOMBIA and NIGERIA,
supported deleting reference to developing guidance on assessing the
economic value of biodiversity.

MEXICO, supported by COLOMBIA, proposed requesting the Executive
Secretary to prepare for COP 9 an updated document on the usefulness of
the mechanisms for implementing the Convention. BRAZIL warned of the
enormity of the task.

Discussions will continue on Friday.

FRIENDS OF THE CHAIR GROUP

Amb. Donald Cooper (Bahamas) facilitated Friends of the Chair
discussions on actions by parties in developing, implementing and
revising NBSAPs. Participants debated the establishment of national and
subnational targets, agreeing to retain the general reference to their
use in assessing progress towards the 2010 target but not specify their
content. On references to indigenous and local communities, participants
agreed to acknowledge that they are separate from stakeholders, and to
take into account traditional knowledge. On mobilization of financial
resources, participants agreed to consider existing and new funding
sources and not to refer specifically to the financial mechanism.

On references to the ecosystem approach, some developed countries
preferred describing it as the primary framework for implementation of
the Convention to be applied universally, while some developing
countries favored referring to it as a useful tool, to be applied where
appropriate. The matter was referred to informal consultations.

IN THE CORRIDORS

As Chair Rezende de Castro swiftly steered discussions on the draft
recommendations in plenary, in the basement, the Friends of the Chair
group grappled with references to the ecosystem approach and financial
resources, prompting some one-person delegations to hop up and down the
stairs to keep up with negotiations in both sessions.

Earlier in the day, one regional group debated the question of whether
to continue convening the WGRI after COP 9. Some delegates opined that
the meeting’s outcomes may not justify the considerable expense being
diverted from limited resources, while others were adamant that the WGRI
is needed as a counterweight to SBSTTA to enable the latter to be
politics-free, and underscored that COP 9 will be better informed thanks
to
WGRI 2’s discussions.

This issue of the e Earth
Negotiations Bulletin �
<enb@iisd.org>
is written and edited by
Xenya Cherny Scanlon, Reem
Hajjar, Stefan Jungcurt,
Ph.D., Olivia Pasini and
Nicole Schabus. The Digital
Editor is Anders Gon�alves
da Silva, Ph.D. The Editor
is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>.
The Director of IISD
Reporting Services is
Langston James “Kimo” Goree
VI <kimo@iisd.org>.
The Sustaining Donors of the
Bulletin are the
United Kingdom (through the
Department for International
Development – DFID), the
Government of the United
States of America (through
the Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs), the
Government of Canada
(through CIDA), the Danish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
the Government of Germany
(through the German Federal
Ministry of Environment -
BMU, and the German Federal
Ministry of Development
Cooperation - BMZ), the
Netherlands Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, the
European Commission (DG-ENV)
and the Italian Ministry for
the Environment, Land and
Sea. General Support for the
Bulletin during 2007
is provided by the Swiss
Federal Office for the
Environment (FOEN), the
Norwegian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and the
Ministry of Environment, the
Government of Australia, the
Austrian Federal Ministry
for the Environment, the
Ministry of Environment of
Sweden, the New Zealand
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and Trade, SWAN
International, the Japanese
Ministry of Environment
(through the Institute for
Global Environmental
Strategies - IGES) and the
Japanese Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry
(through the Global
Industrial and Social
Progress Research Institute
- GISPRI). Funding for
translation of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin
into French has been
provided by the
International Organization
of the Francophonie (IOF)
and the French Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. Funding for
the translation of the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
into Spanish has been
provided by the Ministry of
Environment of Spain. The
opinions expressed in the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
are those of the authors
and do not necessarily
reflect the views of IISD or
other donors. Excerpts from
the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin may be used in
non-commercial publications
with appropriate academic
citation. For information on
the Bulletin,
including requests to
provide reporting services,
contact the Director of IISD
Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>,
+1-646-536-7556 or 212 East
47th St. #21F, New York, NY
10017, USA. The ENB Team at
WGRI 2 can be contacted
by e-mail at <Xenya@iisd.org>.